https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Daniel Kopeček <dkopecek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(plautrba@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #11 from Daniel Kopeček <dkopecek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #10) > > spdlog-0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm > > One dot too much after "git": > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages It's already packaged and submitted. Given that: 1) the package passed the review 2) there are other packages that use this form of snapshot version syntax I don't think it an issue worth fixing. Does it break something? Setting needinfo on the reviewer to hear his opinion on this. > > %files > > %doc README.md > > %license LICENSE > > It makes no sense to create a base package which includes only these two > files. It will never be installed by anything other than the -devel package. > > Note that you can omit the %files section for the base package in order to > build no base package. > > The license file can be included in the -devel package instead: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210754#c10 > > %description devel > > The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for > > developing applications that use %{name}. > > That's a bit half-hearted. Assume it's called a "header-only library", then > "libraries and headers" is one too much. Ok, thanks, I'll fix this in the next update of the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review